1. Google docs are not a violation of conduct. 2. I will argue that the Christan version of gender roles is contrary to the Tanakh, and that they are morally as well as factualy wrong. 3. My opponent must be a Christian and believe that wives should "subit" to their husbands. 4. I will argue that this is contrary to the Tanakh, and therefore ought to be denied.

-"But there"s a dark side to this. Because so many women like being dominated, they are more likely to tolerate physical and emotional abuse in relationships, and are less likely to strive to positions of power in society. In some ways, to be sexually fulfilled, women must sacrifice their dignity."

End of quote...

QUOTE:

-"There"s also a dark side for men. Because men are turned on by being dominant, they are more likely to engage in rape and other sadistic acts, because for some men, consensual sex is a turnoff. If the woman is agreeing to the sex, she"s not being dominated, which ruins the experience for a lot of men. The dark truth is that a lot of men are so evil, they go home every night and have sex with their wives, while fantasizing about jumping out of the bushes and raping some completely random lady on the street."

First of all my opponents religion is "primal-indigenous," not Christian.

Second of all we were arguing whether wives SHOULD submit to their husbands as per Christian gender roles, not that wives enjoy being submissive.

Third of all this is a religious debate, not a scientific debate. We are arguing what the Tanakh says, not what women are aroused by. That's beyond the scope of the debate, and I'm pretty sure I'm too young to discuss such topics.

Either way, "scientifically" speaking, you are wrong, women do not like being dominated sexually, I'm sure some do, but this is called BDSM and some men have it too. However, testosterone makes people more dominate, and since men have higher testosterone levels than women, they are more likely to be dominate, everyone is different though, and some women have more testosterone than some men.

According to the Tanakh, men and women are exactly equal, they are still, on course, different. But this doesn't constitute any specific set of gender roles because not all men or women are the same. Everyone should be free to chose their own roles.

Read Yefet Ben Elis commentary on proverbs and Genesis 1:27, men are equal to women. Also see Genesis 12:21, disproving that G-d does not believe that women should be submissive to MEN.

"You cannot expect all men to assume 1 role in a relationship and all women to assume another specific and absolute role because all men and women are different."

Of course. This very debate is a generalization based argument in the first place. Most men are wired a certain way. Most women are wired a certain way. Most women are attracted to strong, dominant, "leader type". Thus, to say the "Christian", version of "gender roles" is nonsense is actually standing against science ,statistics, and reality.

Are there sexuality exceptions? Sure. The Bible talks about these differences giving an actually rather lengthy description of eunuchs.

Matthew 19:12 is an example of this.

-"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Matt 19:12

Jesus said some are born gay.

Excerpt from article-

-"Here Jesus refers to "eunuchs who have been so from birth." This terminology ("born eunuchs") was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men. Jesus indicates that being a "born eunuch" is a gift from God."

According to Evolution, our survival actually depends on this phenomenon of women picking dominant men. Essentially females who had dominant mates begat dominant offspring, they survived, so this gene is prevelant in our species.

So when the Bible suggests males as dominant it isn't expressing a view based off of strang dogma or social norm, but science and reality itself.

Ever heard the term "nice guys finish last"? Of course you have. It didn't just appear magically one day because of one disgruntled "nice guy". It manifested because it is reality. Being "nice", "beta" or "non-dominate" yields little success with women and yields virtually no success with high caliber women. Why? We know why.

I have proven they adhere to biology ,science, and reality in the earlier rounds. The Christian version of roles actually is the roletaught to people with swag and great success with women. It is also the role taught to women on how to attract men.

Leviticus 18:22:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Interesting. Pro must be stoning adulterers still...

That's why the New Testament was given, to make what God deemed a "better covenant".

-Hebrews 8:6

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

-Hebrews 7:22

Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

Rabbinic Judaism teaches that Moses presented the Jewish religious laws to the Jewish people and that those laws do not apply to gentiles, including Christians.

Theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial.

He stated that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature. Ceremonial precepts, the "ceremonial law", dealing with forms of worshipping God and with ritual cleanness, and judicial precepts, such as those in Exodus 21, came into existence only with the Law of Moses and were only temporary.

The ceremonial commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ".

Upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind, and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin.

2)My opponent must be a Christian and believe that wives should "submit" to their husbands.

If they freely choose to enter into a Christian marriage, it's of their own accord. I've seen marriages where both partners fulfill their "Christian" roles. It's the most beautful thing I've ever seen and shows romance at the deepest level imaginable. The wife lifts up and supports her man. He protects her at all costs even if to hisown loss. Both partners sacrifice. The man is held to a greater accountability to God as the leader. And if he treats his wife poorly he faces judgement. If he does his God given duty and so does she, in reality, the wife is not in a poor position, only a different position. It's like chess. One piece defends at all costs to itself to protect the other piece despite having different skills and abilities.

3)"Morally wrong"

By this logic God is "morally wrong" to expect us to submit to Him in our God given role.

Besides, no one is forcing the female to join into a marriage or a Christian marriage. They freely choose to do so. They can marry a Jew, a Secular man, or no one at all.

Pro:
"and even if my opponent could prove that most women want to be dominated (whilst this is clearly not the case)"

Sure it's not. That's why dating coaches teach domination to men and get millions of dollars to do so, while the others scream "nice guys finish last!" seeming bewildered that women only go for "badboys" or "alpha males" refusing to listen to an alpha male who picks and chooses women at his whim.

Pro:
"his position in this debate was supposed to be that wives should submit to their husbands."

Should they not? Men are physically superior, more left brained, more dominant, etc. The same reason God commands men to submit to Him. He is the one built for His role, not us. I accept my role to submit to God. Why? That's my commanded role, and I accept it accordingly. I'm not a woman so I do not play her role of giving birth, breast feeding, or nurturing in a motherly way.

Pro:
"because in Christianity you believe that you must be a Christian to go to heaven."

This is an assumption. Denominations disagree and individuals on many things. No one knows who God judges to the left or to the right other than himself.

Pro:
"according to you, christian or not wives should submit to their husbands."

I made no mention in this debate as to what a non-Christian woman should do, nor what a Christian woman should do. I have simply made the point that the description in the New Testament of gender roles is consistant with Biology and reality.

Pro asserts that Old Testament Jews considered men and women as "equal in role", yet the woman could not get a divorce of her own accord from her husband while he could get one from her. It also dismisses that lineage was tracked through the male.

Pro:
"Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendents"

The word "lasting" does not mean eternal nor are Gentiles descendents genetically of the Jews.

So here is what we have:

1)Gentiles are not under the covenant that Pro speaks of even according to himself.

2)The New Testament version of gender roles is consistant with what men and women expect from each other naturally via biology.

3)Even Old Testament Jews placed women in a submissive role by not allowing women the same power in a divorce nor lineage being taken from the woman's side.

I'm a Christian with moderate political views. I don't care if the female "submits" to me, but would probably expect her to carry the child and breastfeed if she felt so inclined seeing I have no mammary capabilities. Gender roles stare you in the face no matter how hard you try to escape them fully.she'd carry the child because reality dictates it. I would protect her and take care of her as she did this. That's just reality 101.

@yatesuni
You misunderstand, I said that my opponent must believe that wives should submit to their husbands, not that Christians should, just that whoever my opponent is must be a christian and believe this.
If you were in a debate arguing that the Quran teachings on killing infidels are immoral, ten yes, your opponent would have to defend their acts otherwise he would be agreeing with you.

It is fine for pro to think that the submission applys to christian values, but for con to have to agree with it is sort of unfair, as I said, submission includes a greater force. However this does not mean that Christian values must meat this standard, or that churches or any christian should have to agree with it. You see, culture back then was different, and the bibles books were passed down through generations, so the most likely cause of this was people changing it so that women had to submit to husbands. Now, I don't think that it would be fair to treat this claim as fact, but it is just my thoughts, as he is right that certain passages in the bible to contradict equality among genders, but to take this a christian values is unfair. And to say that the opponent has to agree that submission is right is not necessary. It would be the same as debating a muslim and saying that they must defend the acts of radical muslims, who act based on command of the Quran, right? Now, again, it is in the bible either way. But when you include christian values and say that every word of the bible equals christian value is unfair, because this limits your opponents ability to respond only to what is written in the bible. Of course had you said the rest of the bible is contradictory then this debate would make sense.

I know, but saying that they must argue that is ridiculous to, send the word "submit" means give in to a GREATER force. If it weren't for that rule then the debate would be fair. But sense you have that advantage there really is no way to win for con.

Your rule that they opponent must agree to submission defeats the purpose of the debate, it's an auto win for you. Your claim combined with your rules makes your claim unavoidably true. Now, just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it is the word of God. You ever heard of the telephone game? It's passed down gen to gen and ends up different then what it started out as.